No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation
media
reports about the hearings and debates.

Or the slightly less popular beta towers.


LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could outsource
for some 8-track capability.

I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't even
bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately.
Boeing spent a fortune developing a model to implement DCAC and take
advantage of manufacturing automation, but there was still a nose wheel
collapse on the the first DCAC 747-4xx.

wrote:

Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated
for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.

So are you saying that Center is giving you headings to fly just like a
tower would? I have never seen this.

Newps wrote:

wrote:

Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated
for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.

So are you saying that Center is giving you headings to fly just like a
tower would? I have never seen this.

That's never happened to me. But, my experience with center clearances at non-tower
airport has been limited to mountainous area airports. They simply clear me via
airways and say report over XYZ VOR or ACMEE intersection/waypoint. It's up to me to
know I should fly the OPD. I've never had a problem with that but folks like the
USAF crew at KJAC did.

Having said all that, I've read here and on other aviation forums of pilots getting
heading assignments out of non-tower airports in the flatlands. Isn't there some
provision in the 7110.65 that permits that "open entering controlled airspace..." or
something to that effect?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

[snipped]

LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could
outsource
for some 8-track capability.

I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't
even
bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately.

You favor privatization of the public National Airspace System simply so
that you can bust up a tiny labor union? You must be a Republican. That's
the best reason they could come up with to justify ATC privatization too,
since the facts don't lend themselves to any higher motive.

Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc). Thanks to the political
lobbying efforts of persons such as the Federal Aviation Administrator
herself, we have defeated the evil force of collective bargaining for
employees. Now we can rest assured that any Republican-owned private
business monopoly winning the low bid on American ATC can turn a profit, and
profit is what business is all about.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote:
Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).

And management better watch out if the stockholders get too ****ed off.
The last time the stockholders got really ****ed, King George got a
black eye. Might happen again some day :-)

wrote:


Having said all that, I've read here and on other aviation forums of pilots getting
heading assignments out of non-tower airports in the flatlands.

Doesn't matter if the airport is in the mountains or not you should not
ever get a heading at a nontowered airport.


Isn't there some
provision in the 7110.65 that permits that "open entering controlled airspace..." or
something to that effect?

Yes, you should receive a clearance that states "upon entering
controlled airspace fly heading xxx." Or "Enter controlled airspace
heading xxx."

"Chip Jones" wrote:
Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business,

Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
flexibility of decision making).

just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).

And those companies tired to run the business like a government.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:




If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter
what field you are departing from.


On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:


Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated
for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.

Nor would there be an ODP to fly!


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

[snipped]

LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could
outsource
for some 8-track capability.

I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't
even
bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately.

You favor privatization of the public National Airspace System simply so
that you can bust up a tiny labor union?

I want automation that the Federal system has been incapable of delivering.

You must be a Republican.

The reform of FAA, such that retrofits cease to kill was a Republican
initiative. It is only a few hundred lives a year, but eliminating them put
ATC in the cat bird seat.

That's
the best reason they could come up with to justify ATC privatization too,
since the facts don't lend themselves to any higher motive.

ATC becomming the number two killer in common carrier events after terrorism
helps move the issue forward.

Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc). Thanks to the political
lobbying efforts of persons such as the Federal Aviation Administrator
herself, we have defeated the evil force of collective bargaining for
employees.

All aviation is politics.

Now we can rest assured that any Republican-owned private
business monopoly winning the low bid on American ATC can turn a profit,
and
profit is what business is all about.

Many profit from FAA.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:


If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter
what field you are departing from.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:


Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated
for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.

Nor would there be an ODP to fly!

True enough. But, Murphey's Law being what it is, some might conclude that the lack
of an ODP at a VFR airport means diverse departures are approved.